Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Considering the conspectus of this matter, I had requested the learned Advocates practising Labour Laws to assist the Court. Accordingly, S/Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, V.R. Mundada, S.V. Dankh, Avishkar Shelke, P.V. Barde and Y.R. Marlapalle, learned Advocates have rendered their assistance in this matter. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.7.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur, by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been allowed (in fact partly) and they have been directed to address the Labour Court in the pending Criminal Complaint No.6/2011 filed u/s 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as to why process should not be issued against them. 4. By this petition and considering the contentions of the respondents, an issue has been raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. All these petitions have been admitted by this Court. Considering the nature of the dispute and taking into account that the respondent-employees had given an undertaking before the Cooperative Court, interim relief was not granted in these matters. 2. The petitioner in all these petitions is the State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The deceased Respondent No.1 in the first petition and the respondents in the other three petitions are identically placed. Considering the common issues involved in these matters, all these matters have been taken up together for hearing, by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the identical judgment delivered by the Cooperative Court, Nanded dated 07.05.1990 and the judgment delivered by the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 15.10.1993. 4. Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for the petitioner-management submits as under:- (a) The respondents were working with the petitioner since around 1963...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The question that is referred for our consideration is, as to "whether the order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, confirming the order passed by the externing authority under section 56 and 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can be construed as an 'order' within the contemplation of explanation to Rule 18 of chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960". 2. In view of explanation to Rule 18 of The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the expression 'order', appearing in clauses 1 to 41 means an order passed by any judicial or quasi-judicial authority empowered to adjudicate under the above mentioned statute. Thus, it is essentially required to examine as to whether the order passed in an appeal by the State Government under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is an order passed under quasi-judicial authority or whether it shall be construed as an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This is an application by appellant/accused under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity) for recording of additional evidence of Sonali Manoj Deore mother of the minor girl an alleged victim of sexual abuse and Sunanda Suresh Deore paternal grandmother of alleged victim as well as for further cross-examination of PW-10 the alleged minor victim of sexual abuse. The applicant/accused is father of Sonali Deore and grandfather of the minor girl alleged to be victim of sexual abuse by him. Keeping in mind social object of preventing social victimization of the victim and the object of Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we consider it appropriate not to give name of the victim. Rather we intend to describe her as minor victim girl. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, the application is taken up for hearing prior to final hearing of the appeal. 2. The FIR lodged on 25.8.2009 by PW-7 Major...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard Shri R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/by Shri V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the Appellant in Second Appeal No.700 of 2008 and for Respondent No.1 in Second Appeal No.793 of 2008 with and i/by Shri P.S.Dighe, advocate; Shri P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Shri S.P.Brahme, advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3 in Second Appeal No.700 of 2008 and for the Appellant in Second Appeal No.793 of 2008 with and i/by Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate; and Shri A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for Respondent No.5 in both the appeals. 2. These Second Appeals have been presented objecting to the judgment and order dated 29.04.2008, passed by Ad hoc District Judge-2, Shahada in Trust Applications No.1 of 2007 and 2 of 2007. 3. Although there is a chequered history of the litigation, it would suffice to note that after elections to the Managing Committee were held, Change Report No.207 of 2003 was presented by Choudhary group i.e. appellant in Second Appeal No.700 of 2008, whereas, Change Report ...
Tag this Judgment!